This Commission for Countering Extremism (CCE) is unlike other commissions we have had in the past, that have traditionally had a remit to positively impact minority communities, such as the Commission for Racial Equality and the current Equality and Human Rights Commission. Those commissions were instituted through laws/statute, debated and approved in Parliament i.e. the Equality Act 2010 and the European Convention of Human Rights, adopted as part of UK law. The CCE has no such basis in law. It has not been debated in Parliament, there is no legal definition of extremism and its work is not underpinned by any parliamentary authority.

The only link to legislation is tenuous. Section 26 of the Counter Terrorism and Security Act (CTSA) 2015 places a duty on specific public authorities to have “due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”. This is a terrorism duty not an extremism one. Prevent policies and notions of extremism are opinions, theories and guidance which go well beyond the terrorism duty into censorship of political opinions and religious beliefs/practices; as well as labelling, smearing and disrupting individuals and organisations exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression.

The Commission will institutionalise previously developed theories, ideas and opinions as to what constitutes extremism, neither backed by evidence or law. Rather, despite public references to the counter-extremism strategy being separate to counter-terrorism, this is in conflict with other public statements. The Minister of State at the Home Office, Susan Williams, elaborating the role of the CCE, stated in Parliament,[1]

“Challenging extremism is not a new government objective. The new commission will build on the comprehensive programme of work set out in the counter-extremism strategy. This strategy is all about working with communities, standing up for our fundamental values, supporting integration and striving to defeat extremism. However, there is more that we can and must do. The Commission for Countering Extremism will play a crucial part in supporting future efforts to stamp out extremism in this country.”

Restrictive not universal application.

To be considered just and fair, laws and policies should be applied equally to all. An act of racial discrimination for example can be identified no matter who commits it in any part of the UK.

Extremism on the other hand, focuses on opinions and labelling, primarily on Muslim communities with the “far right” added on – almost as an afterthought. Even between these two, application is unfair; as in one instance a whole community and its beliefs are considered ‘suspect’ whereas in the other it is seen as an individual problem. This is being further reinforced by the development of indicators of communities susceptible to extremism and mapping exercises that will target Muslims based on vague indicators.

To add further to inequality, Northern Ireland with a long tradition of what could be described as Christian/nationalist political violence, and the largest number of ‘terrorist’ acts for decades, is specifically exempted from the Section 26 Terrorism Duty and the work of Extremism Commission will not be applicable there. Prevent does not apply in Northern Ireland – thus raising important questions on the way in which the government has constructed its own ideas about the root causes of political violence. Discussions in Parliament on scope of the counter-extremism strategy are important to understand for context of its emphasis. It is worth noting Gavin Robinson’s statements made in Parliament on the 20th of January 2016:[2]

“The Government recently published a counter-extremism strategy. When I asked why Northern Ireland, which has a fair number of extremists, was not included in the strategy, I was told, “Don’t push the issue too far. It is really a counter-Islamic strategy.”

To this, Gerald Howarth replied,

“Indeed. Everything is being done so that the Government can pretend that they are being even-handed. We cannot be even-handed between those who do not threaten our national security and those who do. We have to be specific.”

Civil sanctions not backed by law

In the absence of a legal framework, what we have already, and will have more of, is a set of opinions and practices developed by think tanks and so called ‘experts’ that will be wrapped around existing laws. This will lead to precedents being set and civil sanctioning outside of the criminal justice system. Since the standard of proof in civil cases is significantly less than in criminal ones i.e. from the higher standard of “beyond all reasonable doubt” to a lower one of a “balance of probabilities” – it will be relatively easy to label and sanction someone for ‘extremism’ with negative consequences on their life.

Key to the system of civil sanctions, is the embedded use of public interest immunity by the government, or in other words, the invocation of secret evidence due to reasons of national security. When these potential sanctions are understood in light of the history of civil sanction use post-9/11, it can be understood that in nearly every single case, secret evidence will be invoked, and therefore be difficult to challenge.

Lack of due process and rights of appeal

The Equality and Human Rights Commission is about advancing people’s rights and equal treatment – but mostly finds its mandate within the law. Whereas the CCE is about restricting people’s rights and freedoms and regulating people’s beliefs and behaviour. However, unlike other agencies charged with regulation or restrictions/sanctioning, such as the Charity Commission or OFSTED or professional regulatory bodies, there is no due process that has been indicated. The labelling and smearing of people or ideas, beliefs, and practices is not backed by a process, let alone a transparent one.

There is no transparent investigation of a person or organisation, there is no right to representation or interview, challenge, and if so labelled, no process of appealing. Prevent and ‘extremism’ work, as it has been operating, shrouded in ‘intelligence’ and secrecy. For example, the Counter Terrorism Local Profile (CTLP) which has underpinned much of extremism work is a secret intelligence document prepared for each main local authority area, informing public bodies on who or what are extremist activities. There is no way to challenge such a document and its content as things currently stand, even without the CCE.

The CCE Equality and Civil Rights

In its remit the government suggests the CCE will advance rights in the manner of civil rights movements – much of the language has already been caged in the terms of anti-racism work. This is a perversion of civil rights movements in the US and UK. Governments and their agencies, or individuals aligned to them have seldom advanced civil rights. It has nearly always been movements opposed to unethical laws, government and those challenging them. Many of these movements and their leaders were considered ‘extremists’ and ‘radicals’ in their time. The consequence of Prevent and extremism policies, is that many of those individuals such as Martin Luther King, Emmeline Pankhurst and others would not even be allowed to speak at a university or community venue or address a charity. It was radicalism that led to political change and advancement of rights.

Advancement of civil rights, cannot come from those who wish to impose sanctions and restrict the rights of communities, or through labelling and smearing of lawful activities. This is much more akin to the kind of commissions that were set up by the House of Un-American Activities during the McCarthyite era of American politics. As in the past, it will be those outside government and challenging it who will be remembered as advancing the civil rights of communities.

Subjective not objective notions of British Values

‘Extremism’ is a term that is not legally defined. Despite this, the work of the CCE will seek to incorporate a second definition. This, at a time when already the notion of Fundamental British Values has been embedded within counter-terrorism without any clarity. The terms are not and cannot be legally defined because notions of what they constitute vary between people and within communities, across society and change from time to time. In the absence of clear legal definitions, we are left with subjective opinions of individuals and think-tanks of the most powerful groups in society being able to impose their views and opinions on minority groups. This will simply lead to more discrimination and criminalisation against Muslim communities and further erosion of rights. Muslims who support the CCE will be effectively supporting self-criminalisation of their own community and unequal treatment.

We strongly urge Muslims and all fair-minded people to not support this insidious Commission which is totally against British traditions. We further call for our society to place its emphasis on violent crime, and dealing with the root causes of violent crime. Just as all violent offenders in the UK, even when their acts are politically motivated, are charged and convicted under the criminal justice system, we believe that to be a standard by which we can effectively deal with potential offences, thereby reinforcing the Rule of Law – a key component of our collective values.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/must-reject-commission-countering-extremism/feed/029854Is Your Islam Shaped by Others?https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/islam-shaped-others/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/islam-shaped-others/#respondTue, 19 Dec 2017 17:44:02 +0000https://www.islam21c.com/?p=29036We are today exposed to many types of thought and ideologies such as secularism, liberalism, atheism and humanism—how does this affect us?

‘And do not weaken, and do not be sad for you have the upper hand, if you are [true] believers.’[1]

This verse was revealed in reference to the Battle of Uḥud, when the Muslims sustained heavy combat losses leading to some of the companions feeling defeated over the fact that their enemies were overpowering them. To offer conciliation, Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) revealed this verse to make them aware that if they were true believers, i.e., those who followed His commandments and believed in Him sincerely, nothing would debase them in the sight of Allāh or make them feel inferior to the polytheists they were battling with.

We may wonder how we can apply the teachings of this verse to our current situation. Our Muslim community currently suffers from a plethora of issues including Islamophobia, differences in world views and media attacks on our values. However, just as Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) reminded the companions at the time of battle, we should find solace in the intrinsically greater moral and intellectual value system that Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) has given us. As a Muslim community, we should have no reason to feel intimidated by others in any way.

In this article, we will explore how students, academics and conversationalists can deal with conflicting ideologies and understand our faith in as authentic a way as possible; a common challenge found amongst university students.

For many, attending university has likely been the single biggest life event to have occurred up to that point, with students enrolling as blank canvases eager for the university experience to shape them in the hopes of graduating as more enlightened individuals. Of course, by entering an academic institute filled with different characters, we are subsequently exposed to many types of thought and ideologies such as secularism, liberalism, atheism and humanism. Undoubtedly, these forms of thinking can often be in opposition to ours and, perhaps, some of us are able to remain steadfast on the understanding of our īmān in the face of debate and diatribe; however, those who might not have a strong Islamic grounding can easily be affected, tainting the way they see their own worldview.

It can lead to wavering Muslims making unreasonable demands of the religion, this can be through superimposing principles of other worldviews onto Islam and expecting the religion to conform to those ideas. For example, equality in almost all things is a maxim commonly touted in the West – mentioned very often in the discussion of gender roles. Due to these external influences, coupled with a lack of Islamic knowledge, some Muslims claim absolute equality in all things to be an Islamic concept. A more specific example lies in laws of inheritance, criticism of Islam usually lies in the fact that males may receive more inheritance money than females (in some scenarios), which is seen as a perversion of some people’s concretisations of ‘equality’. However, Islam is a religion based on equity and not equality, taking into account various social and personal circumstances before coming to a decision, which is more just than other worldviews. Nonetheless, when aspects of the religion do not agree with the prevalent world view it can cause unease in these wavering individuals, and even rewriting or outright rejection of some aspects of the religion.

Additionally, some may enter the university arena and become paralysed into thinking that other ideologies, packaged and presented under an academic lens, are objectively correct and thus they become hypercritical of their Islamic tradition and begin to lack conviction in it. It is important Muslims do not indiscriminately internalise all they hear based solely on their feeling of intellectual inferiority. The Qur’ān encourages people to think critically, using their intellect to survey the situation and come to a rational and reasonable conclusion – as was done by Ibrāhīm (ʿalayhi al-Salām):

So when the night covered him [with darkness], he saw a star. He said, “This is my lord.” But when it set, he said, “I like not those that disappear.”

And when he saw the moon rising, he said, “This is my lord.” But when it set, he said, “Unless my Lord guides me, I will surely be among the people gone astray.”

And when he saw the sun rising, he said, “This is my lord; this is greater.” But when it set, he said, “O my people, indeed I am free from what you associate with Allah .

Indeed, I have turned my face toward He who created the heavens and the earth, inclining toward truth, and I am not of those who associate others with Allah .”[2]

Throughout these passages Ibrāhīm (ʿalayhi al-Salām) employs a series of logical arguments, analysing the situation at hand, concluding, then criticising the thought process once more until he finally shows who Allāh is—and is not—in the right way. Similarly, across the Qur’ān, numerous verses end with the phrase ‘if only they reasoned/understood/used their minds’, promulgating critical and genuinely rational thinking at all times. Ideally, we should criticise and assess other worldviews in equal measure and consider them for what they are rather than what they propose themselves to be; regular practice of this will allow one to notice a natural superiority in the Islamic way of thinking – the religion coming from Allāh, the all-knowing and all-wise, who knows us better than we know ourselves.

Another reason as to our apparent lack of confidence in the Islamic tradition may be our lack of knowledge of our historic scholarship, who tackled similar issues to the ones we are facing today—indicating the trials we are going through as a community are not completely novel, true to the old saying ‘history repeats itself’. In the time of Imām Aḥmad b. Hanbal (raḥimahu Allāhu) there was the rise of different theological groups (the Muʿtazilah, et al.) with contradictory views of normative Islām, who Imām Aḥmad beat into intellectual submission. Similarly, Imām al-Ghazāli and Ibn Taymiya intellectually grappled with the rise of speculative theologians overly impressed with Greek philosophy, likewise coming out victorious. In each of these cases, the intruding ideology corrupted the way Muslims understood Islām, just as we see today.

One particularly interesting, and applicable, concept was mentioned through the writings of Ibn Taymiya. He articulates that we must come to the Qur’ān empty, allowing ourselves to be affected by its intended message and not seeking to justify un-Islamic ideas originating from our external influences. When theological groups of the past were affected by external influences, they subsequently made errors in the way they understood and portrayed the religion. For us today, this requires our removing the lens of secularism, liberalism, feminism, et cetera and looking at the primary Islamic sources (Qur’ān, Sunnah, Ijmāʿ) independently as Islām has its own independent worldview, not contingent upon anything else.

In short, the ultimate purpose of the religion is to establish the glorification and worship of God – sincerely and in the correct way.

‘And they were not ordered except to worship Allāh, sincerely and in oneness.’[3]

The aim is to access the Qur’ān, Sunnah and scholarly precedents in a sincere way, only looking to please Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) and gain closeness to Him – understanding this maxim at all times can allow us to get closer to the truth, inshāAllāh.

This notion has been established through many verses in the Qur’ān and ḥadīth literature with scholars of Islamic jurisprudence, through holistic reading of the revelatory scriptures, even deriving this concept to be the greatest goal of Islamic law. When we adopt views, then, that are not Islamic in origin to inform our understanding of Islām, are we fulling this greater objective? Some people say that Islām calls towards equality in all things such as gender roles and inheritance – is that true from reading the text, or was this idea superimposed from our external environment and other worldviews, and is this view aiming to please people or God? Rather, from reading the Qur’an independently we can infer that Islām calls towards equity rather than equality4—everyone is treated according to their rank, status, level of need as this is the most just, most practical, and most correct in the sight of God to establish His worship.

I conclude with some practical points for those entering higher education, putting this article into perspective:

Educate yourselves – learn to better inform yourself of the authentic Islamic stances on many social phenomena we see being referenced today, this includes gender interaction; equality; governance; law; and crime and punishment.5

When you read the Qur’ān and Sunnah, have an open mind and clean heart to allow the texts to have the intended effect on you. Do not carry any pre-existing ideas when you read the texts, lest you extract an incorrect understanding from it – that way you can be more confident you are only seeking to access the text to please Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā).

Listen to yourself and be critical of what you are saying. If you are speaking about the religion, is the goal to please Allāh and convey His message, or are there any underlying agendas or biases effecting how you are conveying Islām?

I ask Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) to make us people of intelligence, those who read His scripture and only increase in īmān and servitude to Him, practicing and speaking about it in a way that He is pleased with. Āmīn.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/islam-shaped-others/feed/029036What will you achieve with your life?https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/what-will-you-achieve-with-your-life/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/what-will-you-achieve-with-your-life/#respondMon, 20 Jun 2016 16:00:49 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=22641Regrets gather around us like books we wish we’d read. One day a book other than the Qur’an will become most critical to us. On the day of standing, there will be a moment when the books will fly into our hands. It will be a moment when anxiety will reach such levels that even ...

]]>Regrets gather around us like books we wish we’d read. One day a book other than the Qur’an will become most critical to us.

On the day of standing, there will be a moment when the books will fly into our hands. It will be a moment when anxiety will reach such levels that even a baby’s hair will turn grey with fear. Picture yourself standing there, naked, in a pool of your sweat, watching as the books begin their journey. Your heart thudding against your chest as your personal register of deeds draws closer. Think quick. Is there a way out? You look besides you… ‘surely his deeds will be better than mine’ you consider pushing him aside to take his book, but then resign yourself to inevitability. Your chest tightens. The book lands in your hand. The most pertinent question being: right or left?

There will at least be one man on that day who will be running around showing people his book of deeds.

“So as for he who is given his record in his right hand, he will say, ‘Here, read my record! Indeed, I was certain that I would be meeting my account.’ So he will be in a pleasant life – in an elevated garden, its fruit to be picked hanging near. [They will be told], “Eat and drink in satisfaction for what you put forth in the days past.”[1]

This sincere servant of ar-Rahman had spent his life obeying Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala), hiding his good deeds as if they were sins, but now the time has come to shout it to the world. In Jannah there will be no clock and we, by His (subhanahu wa taʿala) permission will be able to meet and spend time with the greatest personalities that ever existed. Imagine the moment when you will meet the greatest human being at the Hawd and he (sall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam) gives you a drink from his blessed hands. What will your conversation with him (sall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam) be? Picture the moment you meet the Prophet or Companion who inspired you during your time on earth. If you were to meet Yusuf (ʿalayhi al-Salam) will you ask him how he felt at the bottom of the well? Or if you were to meet Talhah (raḍiy Allahu ʿanhu) will you ask him about defending the Prophet (sall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam)? Or if you were to meet Maryam (ʿalayha al-Salam) will you ask her about shaking the palm tree? When that moment comes, what will you answer if you are asked in turn: “What did you achieve with your life?”

Will your answer amount to nothing more than being a till receipt? Is the sum of your life’s achievements waking up, going to work, coming home, some telly, Salah and then sleep? You were created for so much more. Whatever anyone says about Muhammad Ali, he did something with his life. When faced with an oppressive government which attempted to force him to fight in an unjust war, Muhammad Ali retorted:

“The real enemy of my people is here. I will not disgrace my religion, my people or myself by becoming a tool to enslave those who are fighting for their own justice, freedom and equality.”

Faced with losing his World title and imprisonment he said:

“I have nothing to lose by standing up for my beliefs. So I’ll go to jail, so what? We’ve been in jail for 400 years”.

Our world today is filled with even more injustice. Drone strikes, barrel bombs, raped, murdered mothers, starving children, and yet some live in a bubble either blind to the plight of their brethren, or, resigned to seemingly overwhelming odds. Those should heed the words of our brother Muhammad Ali:

“Impossible is just a big word thrown about by small men who find it easier to live the world they’ve been given, than to change it. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare.”

No doubt Muhammad Ali was eagerly anticipating the beautiful guest of Ramadan and the blessings which it would bring. Yet Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala) decreed that another of His (subhanahu wa taʿala) creation should visit him: the angel of death. So whilst the western world celebrates Muhammad Ali’s life we, the Muslims, his family, should focus on helping our brother in his time of need.

After the Prophet (sall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam) would bury the deceased, there were no memorials or long speeches. He did not eulogise, rather he (sall Allahu ʿalayhi wa sallam) simply instructed:

“Seek forgiveness for your brother and pray that he remains firm, for he is now being questioned.”[2]

Whilst President Obama would like to have draped Muhammad Ali in the star-spangled banner, his coffin was covered with nothing of the sort. Of the many gifts Muhammad Ali had been given, be they his unmatched boxing prowess, or his profound oratory skills, ultimately the greatest gift the Controller of hearts (subhanahu wa taʿala) gave to Muhammad Ali was the favour of Islam. On the Day of Reckoning, Muhammad Ali will want to stand with the Muslims, under the banner of Islam, rather than any other flag. Muhammad Ali said:

“This life is not real. I conquered the world and it did not bring me satisfaction. God gave me this illness to remind me that I’m not the number one, He is.”

Many well-known personalities have passed away in the last few months. Take the musician Prince, David Bowie, Johan Cruyff, Victoria Wood or magician Paul Daniels. How many people have taken such an event as an opportunity to reflect and ask: “What happens after I die?” It is a natural question, but you will not find a single article in the mainstream media asking it amongst the painstaking dissection of their lives and deaths. The net wealth of one of those celebrities is staggering, with reports that David Bowie had left behind an eye watering £600 million. How much would he give now to ransom his soul?

Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala) says:

But as for he who is given his record in his left hand, he will say, “Oh, I wish I had not been given my record and had not known what is my account. I wish, that it (death) had been my end! My wealth has not availed me. My power and arguments (to defend myself) have gone from me!”[3]

Muhammad Ali’s wealth is not measured in dollars, pounds or rupees. Rather, it is his example, his inspiration, his words and his actions. So we remember our brother Muhammad Ali. We recall his tenacity in standing up to Western imperialism and home grown racism. We take a lesson from his life in that one of the greatest athletes of all time was overpowered by the weakness of old age and illness. We reflect that Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala) took his soul only a few days before the blessed month of Ramadan whilst we took for granted that we would reach it. Should we be given the gift of the entirety of this blessed month we should not greet Eid with regret over an opportunity lost.

We ask Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala) to forgive Muhammad Ali’s sins, turn them into good deeds, strengthen him during questioning and make his grave from the gardens of Paradise. O Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala) fill Muhammad Ali’s grave with light, and open a door from it to Paradise. O Allah have mercy upon him because you are the Most Merciful.

By the Permission of Allah (subhanahu wa taʿala) one day we will be able to sit and read through the book of Muhammad Ali with him. When we do so, we may then realise that, whilst it is ok to live life floating like a butterfly, sometimes it is better to sting like a bee.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/what-will-you-achieve-with-your-life/feed/022641A Battle for the Souls of our Childrenhttps://www.islam21c.com/politics/a-battle-for-the-souls-of-our-children/
https://www.islam21c.com/politics/a-battle-for-the-souls-of-our-children/#commentsWed, 20 Apr 2016 16:00:18 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=21299O my fellow people of Britain, lend me your ears. There is a secret army of 640,000 plus strong amassing its ranks against you. It is unlike anything you have ever seen before having infiltrated every walk of life. An army made of doctors, lawyers, civil servants, postal workers, teachers, hairdressers and engineers all supporting ...

]]>O my fellow people of Britain, lend me your ears. There is a secret army of 640,000 plus strong amassing its ranks against you. It is unlike anything you have ever seen before having infiltrated every walk of life. An army made of doctors, lawyers, civil servants, postal workers, teachers, hairdressers and engineers all supporting Islamist terrorism. But they are not all Muslim. No, the vast majority are either Christian, Hindu or Jewish. Some are even agnostic or atheist. But all support violence to meet political Islamist objectives. This is the untold, yet shocking, statistic of Channel 4’s “What British Muslims really think”. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Trevor Phillips’ (now notorious) documentary cast a supposedly scientific eye on the British Muslim community. Its basic premise was that as Britain was at risk of terrorist acts from those who purport to be from the Muslim community. For Phillips, it logically follows to examine this community more closely. Mr Phillips’ view, however, is in direct contradiction to Professor Robert Pape, leading terrorism expert in America, who conducted a comprehensive study of 354 suicide attacks across the world. Professor Pape concluded: “the presumed connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism is misleading and may be encouraging domestic and foreign policies likely to worsen America’s situation and to harm many Muslims needlessly.” Professor Pape goes on to say: “Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland.”[1]

For the sake of argument, let us proceed with Mr Phillips’ reasoning and consider his survey of 1084 British Muslims which found 4% supported acts of terrorism, that’s around 40. The documentary then used this to extrapolate it to the wider Muslim community and boldly claimed that 100,000 Muslims supported terrorism. Wow. Yet, what seems to have been missed is that the survey also found 1% of the control group, representing people of all or no faith, also supported terrorism. So, obediently, I followed Mr Phillips’ methodology and extrapolated. Now, I may not be the best at maths so I called my mate Dr Phd in Mathematics to confirm the figure I reached. He couldn’t believe it either, so he called his old Professor chum and all three of us were astonished at the number; a whopping 640,000 non-Muslims supported Islamic terrorism. Now, I knew things were bad in Britain in terms political disillusionment, but 640,000 Hindus, Jews, Sikhs, Christians, agnostics, and atheists supporting Islamist terrorism?!

Phillips’ documentary would be funny if its ramifications were not so serious. Not least of all its title, ‘what Muslims really think’, which implies Muslims are liars and untrustworthy. That kind neighbour only helps you for an ulterior motive. Don’t turn your back on him or he’ll chop your head off, take your wife and daughter as sex slaves and turn your son into a suicide bomber. Jokes aside, it is precisely this kind of reckless and irresponsible reporting which gives succour to attacks on pregnant Muslim women on buses, or the murder of elderly Muslim men walking home from the mosque. Trevor Phillips should hang his head in shame. But will he?

To answer this we need to take at a look at his close friend, Mr Littlejohn – the same infamous Mr Littlejohn author of “Jolly Jihadi boys outing to Legoland”, an article about a Muslim family day out at Legoland. Mr Littlejohn wrote that when Mr Phillips had taken the chairmanship of the Equality and Human Rights Commission he had done so: “because he [Phillips] wanted to close it down.”[2] Mr Littlejohn provides even more insight into Trevor Phillips’ mind-set. He writes, “He [Phillips] also insisted that as a black man, he could say things about race that people like me couldn’t — at least, not without being slandered as some kind of knuckle-scraping BNP troglodyte.” Interesting. I was reminded of a speech from El-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz, known to some as Malcolm X, who said:

So you have two types of Negro. The old type and the new type. Most of you know the old type. When you read about him in history during slavery he was called “Uncle Tom.” He was the house Negro. And during slavery you had two Negroes. You had the house Negro and the field Negro.

The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master’s second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master’s house–probably in the basement or the attic – but he still lived in the master’s house.

So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself. When his master said, “We have good food,” the house Negro would say, “Yes, we have plenty of good food.” “We” have plenty of good food. When the master said that “we have a fine home here,” the house Negro said, “Yes, we have a fine home here.” When the master would be sick, the house Negro identified himself so much with his master he’d say, “What’s the matter boss, we sick?” His master’s pain was his pain. And it hurt him more for his master to be sick than for him to be sick himself. When the house started burning down, that type of Negro would fight harder to put the master’s house out than the master would himself.

But then you had another Negro out in the field. The house Negro was in the minority. The masses- the field Negroes were the masses. They were in the majority. When the master got sick, they prayed that he’d die. If his house caught on fire, they’d pray for a wind to come along and fan the breeze.

If someone came to the house Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s escape, let’s separate,” naturally that Uncle Tom would say, “Go where? What could I do without boss? Where would I live? How would I dress? Who would look out for me?” That’s the house Negro. But if you went to the field Negro and said, “Let’s go, let’s separate,” he wouldn’t even ask you where or how. He’d say, “Yes, let’s go.”

So now you have a twentieth-century-type of house Negro. A twentieth-century Uncle Tom. He’s just as much an Uncle Tom today as Uncle Tom was 100 and 200 years ago. Only he’s a modern Uncle Tom. That Uncle Tom wore a handkerchief around his head. This Uncle Tom wears a top hat. He’s sharp. He dresses just like you do. He speaks the same phraseology, the same language. He tries to speak it better than you do. He speaks with the same accents, same diction. And when you say, “your army,” he says, “our army.” He hasn’t got anybody to defend him, but anytime you say “we” he says “we.” “Our president,” “our government,” “our Senate,” “our congressmen,” “our this and our that.” And he hasn’t even got a seat in that “our” even at the end of the line.

The Channel 4 documentary also had troubling echoes with one of the darkest passages in modern European history: the Third Reich. Nazi propagandists aided the regime’s policies by publicly identifying a group for exclusion by inciting hatred against them and justifying their pariah status to the populace. This was done both crudely and subtly. Such propagandists laid the groundwork for the Nuremberg Laws which were significant anti-Jewish statutes enacted in 1935.[3] Propaganda together with such laws were key to creating ‘the other’: a subhuman class, not worthy of mercy, equal to vermin, requiring extermination for the preservation of the wider German population. Phillips’ language is alarmingly similar. For instance, in the Times, Phillips says Muslims are ‘not like us’.[4] It is for the reader to decide if there are parallels with Nazi propaganda and more recent British right-wing media productions and articles. For those who say I am over reacting or sensationalising, have a look at some of the comments referring to a “civil war ”.[5] Phillips and his co-Islamophobes have created this hostile environment for anti-Muslim bigotry to thrive and gain dinner table acceptability.

One question that seems not to have been asked about the documentary is the motive. Why did he make it? I do not pretend to know Mr Phillips’ mind, but it seems to me a clue was in Anjum Anwar’s reference to school’s ethnic diversity. The proposal, it seems, is for children to be classified by the faith of their parents and for Muslim children to be compelled to attend school with children from other faiths. So there it is. The real objective: our children. David Cameron hinted at it when he spoke of the ‘struggle of our generation’. Prevent, television productions such as those from Phillips and Quilliam foundation statements are all designed to cut off Muslim children from the core tenants of the Islamic faith. The objective is to create a new generation of Muslims; those who are Muslim by name but will bear little resemblance to normative Islam as was revealed by Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā). It may take some time but, ultimately, the likely aim is to create a British revised Qur’ān to be read only in English and only in government sanctioned mosques; to have lesbian and gay Imāms leading weekly prayers; to have ḥijābs replaced by uncovering and to break fasts with a pint of ale. Paradise and Hellfire will only be allegorical and the concept of God will be reduced to humanity’s love for each other. Nothing will be sacred. Nothing will be left without ‘reformation’. I seek refuge in Allāh from all this. This is a battle for the souls of our children.

Unwittingly, Phillips’ documentary did increase the Īmān of many believers by actively confirming what Allāh (subḥānahu wa taʿālā) warns of in the noble Qur’ān:

“They want to extinguish the light of Allāh with their mouths, but Allāh refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers hate it.”[6]

Phillips said: “we have to adopt a far more muscular approach to integration than ever, replacing the failed policy of multiculturalism” echoing his old friend, Tony Blair – the multi-millionaire property magnate and mideast envoy for ‘peace’ whom some claim is a war criminal.[7][8]

and

“And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, ‘Indeed, the guidance of Allāh is the [only] guidance.’ If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allāh no protector or helper.”[9]

The truth is Trevor Phillips and his fellow Islamophobes do not want a multicultural Britain. Instead, they want Muslim assimilation to ‘British values’ as defined by a white supremacist agenda. In this, parallels can be drawn between Mr Phillips and Mr Trump from across the pond. Whilst the latter would like to create a policy for non-US national Muslims, Trevor Phillips, although with more intelligence and sophistication, would, it seems, like to create a two-tier British society. A society defined and divided by adherence to a particular faith: Islām. In this religious apartheid Muslims would need to accept greater governmental control, scrutiny and interference over their lives and those of their children. Their children would be brainwashed until a thoroughly colonised, disempowered mind-set is achieved. But Muslims have a choice. Those who are oppressed can choose to be so, or they can choose to stand up and collectively and individually fight for their rights. No doubt many good non-Muslims will stand up with them.

Where is the outrage to the documentary? Imagine if a similar production was made for any other minority group: “What do Blacks/Jews/ the Disabled/Gays really think”. Or imagine, if you will, the British public reaction to hearing of a similar survey conducted in a majority Muslim country in which non-Muslims were identified and separated for special attention and, thereafter, instructed to either assimilate to the wider predominant culture or accept the consequences. Oh, wait. It has happened – look at ISIS and its treatment of Christians and Yazidis.

So Mr Phillips, this is what Muslims really think or, rather, believe: We believe in Allāh and that He created me and you and everything else. We believe in the Qur’ān and that Allāh’s commands are superior to those made by man. We believe in justice, in feeding the poor, in kindness to parents, in mercy to the orphans and that true success is in Allāh’s pleasure and disaster is in His wrath. We believe in Gardens of Eternal Bliss for those who please Allāh and a Hellfire that will never relent for the criminals. We recognise we live in Britain where the vast majority are not Muslim and do not want Islamic Law and we respect that. We stand up for their right to choose how they want to live as much as we will robustly defend our right to live our lives as we choose.

We are a proud, strong, noble nation and we will never abandon our faith, gripping to it with our molar teeth, if need be. To my brothers busting the fistful beard – walk tall, be proud. You are from the grandsons of Bilāl and ʿAlī. To my brave sisters rocking the niqāb – you are beautiful in the sight of Allāh; what can be more precious than that? To those calling for the annihilation of Muslims – can you hear it? The whisper gathering voice; a slow hum, rising to crescendo: “Allāhu Akbar”.

]]>https://www.islam21c.com/politics/a-battle-for-the-souls-of-our-children/feed/521299Justice: The Epitome of Islamhttps://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/justice-the-epitome-of-islam/
https://www.islam21c.com/islamic-thought/justice-the-epitome-of-islam/#respondTue, 22 Sep 2015 12:18:03 +0000http://www.islam21c.com/?p=19208Justice: The Epitome of Islam O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allāh, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety. And fear Allāh, for Allāh is well-acquainted with all that ye ...

O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for Allāh, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety. And fear Allāh, for Allāh is well-acquainted with all that ye do.[1]

Justice is an ideal that has resonated throughout history, across all societies and cultures. But what is justice? When it comes to defining justice, many have a range of perceptions, closely linked to the injustices they see and experience around them. Justice may be collectively desired, but it is individually experienced. The rule of law, a cornerstone of good governance, requires that laws be in place to hold everyone to account, from the individual up to the government. It requires that laws are ‘publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated.’

In the iconic image, Lady Justice holds in her half-raised left hand a pair of scales, so as to weigh the evidence led by the contending parties before the court. The Victorian concept is based on the assumption that justice is blind, that she performs her task without fear or favour, and does not go by the appearance of the parties arraigned.

One may ponder the symbolism of this depiction, however. How do you see which way the scales of Justice tilt, if your eyes are blindfolded? How do you wield the sword of punishment with your eyes deliberately closed? In your blind fury for doing justice, how do you ensure you do not strike at the innocent party instead of the guilty? Furthermore, the delay involved in the process of arriving at the decision will freeze the right arm and shoulder of Lady Justice, as also her left elbow, holding aloft the sword and pair of scales.

With clear eyes (and a clear head) Lady Justice would see with unbiased vision, looking intently at the ever tilting scales held in her left hand. She holds the hilt of the sword in her right hand. The tip of the sword is resting on the ground near her feet, so that her right arm and shoulder are not frozen stiff by the necessary delay involved in the trial. After considering the evidence, Lady Justice is left free to wield the word swiftly, and strike the guilty party. Being clear eyed, she cannot by mistake or accident, strike the innocent.

The Qur’ān repeatedly reiterates the balance of justice,

”And the Heavens He has raised high, and He has set up the Balance (of justice); in order that you may not transgress (due) balance. So establish weight with justice, and fall not short in the balance.”[2]

Justice is the cardinal value of any civilized society. More than any other element, arguably it is justice which has been the cornerstone, and bedrock of all great civilisations. Without justice, the entire bulwark of society would crumble. There would be utter chaos and confusion and people would have to live in constant fear and mental distress if justice were to fade away from society.

The Islamic concept of justice is based on the divinely ordained right of human dignity:

If honour and dignity is a common heritage of mankind, then it is only logical that they all must be treated with it. It is important to remember that one of the attributes of God mentioned in the Qur’ān is ‘Adl, that is justice, which denotes placing things in their rightful place. The Qur’ān says,

“God does command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; and when you judge between man and man, that you judge with justice.”[4]

Justice is also closely associated with moral rectitude and fairness, necessary ingredients to build an equitable system that leaves no room for any section of the community to feel burdened or discriminated against. In fact, the Qur’ān uses strong language to denounce those regimes that divide people by applying differential treatment. Allāh says,

“Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a sector among them, slaughtering their [newborn] sons and keeping their females alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.”[5]

The fact that the commands to do justice and shun inequity have been repeated more than 55 times in the Qur’ān, gives an idea of the overriding importance of justice and equity. The duty to do justice is paramount and no extraneous considerations like personal hatred are allowed to colour the judgement. Not just hatred, other considerations like personal interest, kinship or the high or low standing of the person concerned, shall have no bearing on doing justice. The directive is clear to,

“Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to God, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it is against rich or poor.”[6]

In verse after verse, the Qur’ān implores mankind not to swerve in the performance of justice.

“Indeed, Allāh does not wrong the people at all, but it is the people who are wronging themselves.”[7]

“Surely Allāh does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.”[8]

“And He gives you of all that you ask for. But if you count the favours of Allāh, never will you be able to number them. Verily, man is given up to injustice and ingratitude.”[9]

“And if two parties among the Believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them both: but if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight you (all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the Command of Allāh. Then if it complies, then make reconciliation between them with justice, and be fair: for Allāh loves those who are fair (and just).”[10]

The Qur’ān clarifies that in matters of justice, even the proclaimed faith of a person cannot help him to avert punishment if he is found guilty. It sternly warns those who show partiality on account of religious affinity and defend a wrongdoer:

“We have sent down to you the Book in truth, that you may judge between men, as guided by God: so be not (used) as an advocate by those who betray their trust.”[11]

The commentators explain this verse with reference to the case of Ta’mah b. ‘Ubayriq, a Muslim of Madīna who was suspected of having stolen a shield and later planted it in the house of a Jew, where the property was found. Some Muslims sympathised with Ta’mah, but the Prophet (sallAllāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) ruled in favour of the Jew who had been falsely implicated.[12]

As a measure of special caution, the Qur’ān exhorts Muslims to be just in dealing with all non-Muslims who do not indulge in injustice and persecution:

“Allāh does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allāh loves those who act justly.”[13]

The Qur’anic injunctions on justice and fair dealing are reaffirmed in a multitude of prophetic and scholarly narrations. One tradition quoted by Iāam Ghazāli in his book, Advice to Kings, is particularly revealing:

“A country can survive under kufr (disbelief or ingratitude to God) but it cannot survive under zulm (injustice or oppression).”